Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed three review petitions filed against its common judgment dated 23.01.2019, which had dismissed civil appeals by M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd., M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries, and M/s Trusses and Towers (P) Ltd. against the Assam State Electricity Board. The background involves supply orders issued in 1992 for aluminium conductors, with supplies completed by October 1993. The appellant, M/s Shanti Conductors, had filed a money suit in 1997 seeking interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993, after receiving principal payments, the last being on 05.03.1994. The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed it, and the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, holding the suit barred by limitation. In the review petitions, the appellant raised two main grounds: first, that the last payment on 05.03.1994 gave a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, making the suit filed on 10.01.1997 within time; second, that the period during which a writ petition filed by the Assam Conductors Manufacturers Association (of which the appellant was a member) was pending should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record. Regarding Section 19, the Court noted that the provision requires specific pleading and proof of acknowledgment of payment, which was absent in the suit. The appellant had not pleaded or proved the payment as an acknowledgment under Section 19. As for Section 14, the Court held that the writ petition was filed by a different entity (the Association), not by the appellant itself, and therefore the benefit of exclusion of time was not available. The Court also noted that the appellant had concealed the fact that a writ appeal was filed against the dismissal of the writ petition, which was also dismissed, indicating lack of bona fide prosecution. The Court concluded that the review petitions did not disclose any error apparent and dismissed them. The decision reaffirms that limitation bars are strictly applied, and benefits under Sections 19 and 14 require proper pleading and identity of parties.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 19 - Effect of Payment on Account of Debt - Fresh Period of Limitation - Payment made on 05.03.1994 by respondent to appellant - Appellant argued that this payment gave a fresh period of limitation under Section 19, making the suit filed on 10.01.1997 within time - Court held that Section 19 requires specific pleading and proof of acknowledgment of payment, which was absent in the suit - Benefit of Section 19 cannot be extended without such pleading and proof (Paras 8-10, 12). B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Exclusion of Time of Proceeding Bona Fide in Wrong Court - Appellant sought exclusion of time during pendency of writ petition filed by Assam Conductors Manufacturers Association, of which appellant was a member - Court held that Section 14 requires the plaintiff to be the same entity prosecuting the earlier proceeding with due diligence - Since the writ petition was filed by a different entity (the Association), the benefit of Section 14 was not available to the appellant (Paras 5-6, 12). C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 113 - Suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere - Three years from when right to sue accrues - Last supply completed on 04.10.1993, amount due on 04.11.1993 - Suit filed on 10.01.1997 held barred by time as beyond three years (Paras 10, 12). D) Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 - Retroactivity - Appellant argued that the Act is retroactive and applies to outstanding amounts at commencement - Court did not find error apparent on this ground as it was already considered and decided in the main judgment (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petitions disclose an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the limitation period for the money suit, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 19 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all review petitions, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that Section 19 benefit was not available due to lack of pleading and proof, and Section 14 benefit was not available as the earlier proceeding was by a different entity.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 19
- Section 14
- Section 3
- Article 113
- Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act
- 1993
- retroactivity
- limitation period
- acknowledgment of payment
- exclusion of time
- bona fide prosecution
